IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 16-50900

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

EDUARDO ROCHA, SR., 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:14-CR-1068-1 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Rocha, Sr., appeals his conviction for two counts of conspiracy 

to commit hostage taking and his concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. 

Rocha argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for 

conspiring to commit hostage taking because the Government did not prove 

that he detained the illegal aliens against their will. Rocha did not move for a 

judgment of acquittal during or at the conclusion of the trial; therefore, review 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50900 Document: 00514252404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2017
No. 16-50900

2

is for plain error. See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330-32 (5th Cir. 

2012) (en banc). 

Rocha’s assertion that the aliens voluntarily remained in the house is 

not supported by any evidence in the record. To the contrary, there was 

overwhelming evidence presented that Rocha was “the boss” of the smuggling 

operation and that he directed the transportation of hundreds of illegal aliens 

and the extortion of fees from their family members to obtain their release. 

The evidence also revealed that Rocha was often present in the trailer where

the aliens were being held hostage and that he was aware of, or ordered the 

use of torture and rape to compel the family members to pay additional funds. 

Even under the ordinary standard of review that applies to a preserved 

sufficiency claim, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. See 

United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 522 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, it 

follows that the record was not devoid of evidence to support Rocha’s 

convictions for conspiracy to participate in hostage taking and, therefore, he 

failed to demonstrate plain error. See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 331; United States 

v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465 F.3d 596, 602 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Second, Rocha argues that his life sentences are substantively 

unreasonable in light of his age, poor health, family relationships, and the fact 

that the victims did not lose their lives. He contends that there was an 

unwarranted disparity in his sentence when compared to sentences received 

by similarly situated defendants.

The record reflects that the district court considered the mitigating 

circumstances presented by counsel but determined that such circumstances 

did not outweigh the gravity of the harm caused by Rocha. Rocha did not 

provide any evidence of an unwarranted disparity at sentencing. See United 

States v. Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010). We will not reweigh the 

 Case: 16-50900 Document: 00514252404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2017
No. 16-50900

3

factors considered by the district court in imposing a guidelines range 

sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th 

Cir.2008). Rocha has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness given to 

his guidelines range sentences. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 

(5th Cir.2009). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50900 Document: 00514252404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2017